Musk for free speech, but only up to a point

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 18/12/2022 (691 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

“Media freedom is not a toy. A free press is the cornerstone of democratic societies and a key tool in the fight against harmful disinformation.”

— Melissa Fleming, head of communications at the United Nations, on Thursday

 

Elon Musk claims to be a “free-speech absolutist,” but his most recent Twitter tantrum suggests he is more interested in controlling the narrative than allowing open dialogue on the social platform.

Musk purchased Twitter for US$44 billion in October and subsequently fired or laid off thousands of workers, leading the microblogging website toward a downward spiral and an exodus of users and advertisers. There has not been a peaceful moment on the platform since.

Last Thursday, Musk suspended the Twitter accounts of several journalists from outlets such as the Washington Post, the New York Times and CNN over a controversy on publishing public data about the billionaire’s plane.

The suspensions stemmed from a disagreement over a Twitter account called ElonJet, which tracked Musk’s private plane using publicly available information, according to Reuters. Musk said the posting of his real-time location posed a safety risk for himself and his family.

On Wednesday, Twitter suspended the account and others that tracked private jets, even though Musk previously tweeted saying he would not suspend ElonJet in the name of free speech.

Then, Twitter changed its privacy policy to prohibit the sharing of “live location information.”

After much backlash from politicians, advocacy groups and other organizations, Twitter reinstated those accounts on Friday, although some have said they continued to experience issues.

Donie O’Sullivan, a CNN reporter whose account was suspended and then reinstated, said Friday he still could not tweet because the platform was demanding his removal of one of his posts.

In the mere weeks that Musk has been in charge, Twitter has unsuspended the accounts of several users, including former United States president Donald Trump — who previously used the social media platform to incite hatred and spread misinformation — as well as artist Ye (formerly known as Kanye West), who has once again been barred due to his antisemitic posts.

When Trump was first banned from Twitter and Facebook in 2021 following the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol, it sparked a debate over freedom of speech and what that looks like on digital platforms.

First off, the idea of free speech is meant to protect individuals from being silenced by their own government — it doesn’t extend to private companies, so they can essentially do what they want, when they want. However, what happens on Twitter, which has hundreds of millions of users, impacts society as a whole. And therefore, the decisions made by the company’s owner do, too.

So, where do you draw the line? There is no one solution to this question. Many believe a company has a responsibility to step in when a user’s activity becomes or has the potential to become dangerous. This means developing security and privacy policies that meet the needs of today’s digital world.

However, it appears Musk has used his own arbitrary discretion, as well as random, informal polls, to make decisions concerning Twitter users and their activity, and policies are seemingly being created on a whim.

Musk’s concerns for his and his family’s security would be more legitimate if the information that had been shared on Twitter wasn’t publicly available — but it was. So, what difference does it make to implement a policy that restricts information sharing on one branch of the internet?

While it was within Twitter’s right to deactivate those journalists’ accounts, the company undermined the free press in the process, contributing to the attack on media that has brewed especially hot since Trump’s presidency.

What Musk has ultimately demonstrated through his latest Twitter tantrum is that he’s a “free-speech absolutist” only as far as his thin skin allows, and his ownership of the platform has compromised what was formerly a useful tool for free speech.